Argument33 【0906G 文以载道三月四月小组】第一周第一次作业 by liuguagua

liuguaguaUID: 2569375

ARGUMENT33 - The following report appearedin an archaeology journal.

"The discovery of distinctively shapedceramic pots at various prehistoric sites scattered over a wide area has ledarchaeologists to ask how the pots were spread. Some believe the pot makersmigrated to the various sites and carried the pots along with them; othersbelieve the pots were spread by trade and their makers remained in one place.Now, analysis of the bones of prehistoric human skeletons can settle thedebate: high levels of a certain metallic element contained in various foodsare strongly associated with people who migrated to a new place afterchildhood. Many of the bones found near the pots at a few sites showed highlevels of the metallic element. Therefore, it must be that the pots were spreadby migration, not trade."
×ÖÊý£º300          ÓÃʱ£º00:29:26          ÈÕÆÚ£º2009-1-11 20:44:41

在广泛区域分散分布的很多史前遗迹发现的形状独特的陶壶导致考古学家提出疑问：这些壶是如何流传的？有些人相信壶的制造者迁移到别的地方并把壶随之带来；另一些人相信壶是通过贸易流传的，而他们的制造者留在一个地方。现在，对于史前人类骨骼的分析可以解决这个争论:在多种食物中都含有的某种金属元素的高含 量与那些成年后移居到新地方的人有很高的关联性。在一些遗迹的壶附近发现的很多骨头都显示出这种金属元素的高含量。因此，这些壶肯定是通过迁徙而不是贸易来流传的。

【提纲】
1) prehistoric bones are not representative of all historic people. Some withother traits are missed for a long time
2) food with the high level of certain metallic element exists anywhere, whichcan undermine the author’s assumption
3) trade and migration can exist at the same time.
【正文】
The argument concluded that ceramic potsmade by pot makers are traded to a wide area instead of migration on the basisof analysis of prehistoric human skeleton. The author assumes that high levelsof certain metallic element are associating with the people. The argumentconsists of a series of unsubstantiated assumption which is unpersuasive.

First of all, the author settles theproblem of the spots' spread by analyzing the prehistoric bones. Yet the authoroffers no evidence to substantiate whether the prehistoric bones arerepresentative of overall prehistoric humans. It is entirely possible that thisgroup people are fortunately found and the bones are typical. Thus, the authorcannot convince me that this analysis can deal with the debate.

Secondly, the author assumes that the highlevel of certain metallic elements relate to the newly- migrated people due toanalysis of relics pots. However, many foods contains the certain metallicelements, that is to say the makers took the pots to a new place where peoplewere eating the same foods. In addition, the bones founded near the pots areonly limited and many other pots, which are not found, may display a differentphenomenon. Without accounting for these possibilities, the author cannotconfidently draw the conclusion.

Thirdly, the author assumes that the spreadof pot has only one alternative: trade or migration. Maybe, trade and migrationexist at the same time in that period. Lacking of sufficient evidence, theauthor cannot convince me to believe only one method is responsible for thespread of pots.

In all, this argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To strengthen the argument, the author must supply the evidence thatthe prehistoric bones can be representative of all possibilities. To betterassess this argument, the author must provide the evidence that there is onlyone way for the spread of pots.

[ 本帖最后由 liuguagua 于 2009-1-11 21:23 编辑 ]

perfectattackUID: 2573200

文章整体感觉不错，从你的文章中我也学到了很多，感觉篇幅还可以稍微长一些~
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... e%3D1#pid1772213695